Don't many do this anyway, as in saying whom they suspect and might vote for? And those who don't, voting quickly and seemingly haphazardly, are rightly questioned.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pitchwife

OK, Legate, let me ask you: What exactly do we have to gain from the kind of fake vote you're suggesting?
If it is just that, a fake vote with no real lynch as per G55, we've effectively wasted a day, nobody has to fear the consequences of their vote because without a lynch, we won't know whether they voted for an innoent or a wolf, and the wolves can go wolf-on-wolf to their hearts' content witrh no danger to any of them.
If it's just that people announce beforehand whom they are planning to vote, and the vote takes place later, and we compare what people said before to how they actually voted, how is this different from what we usually do?

Nobody said anything about wasting a day, or else I have grossly misread it!

The idea is this: to make people actually commit and say, by timestamp XX:YY, "I would vote for person A".

Yes, people do that. But usually, people fall into multiple categories. Some people hardly say anything about whom they would actually vote until DL. Some people have like three people they have in the "I could vote" category. That is usually a good strategy for the WWs, who then pick from their three in the last minute, ideally based on which bandwagons exist and what is convenient. The main purpose of the whole thing would be, as I said, to force the WW's hand a bit more than it is. Kind of kick people (especially WWs) into action. Force them to fabricate their accusations of others - because then they will be more easily caught on lying. Because unlike all the other villagers, they would have to lie.

Well, I thought it was a nice idea, at least. It may not be so groundbreaking. But I'd still see some merit in it.

EDIT: x-ed with G55, Lhuna and Boro

__________________"But it is not your own Shire," said Gildor. "Others dwelt here before hobbits were; and others will dwell here again when hobbits are no more. The wide world is all about you: you can fence yourselves in, but you cannot for ever fence it out."

Location: Unattended on the railway station, in the litter at the dancehall

Posts: 3,077

Quote:

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

Ummm... Again, please? Sorry, not sure what you mean. As in spreading the votes in time? I understand how spreading the vote among multiple candidates can help the wolves pick the one they prefer to be offed, but I don't get what you're getting to here.

OK, let's suppose that, say, an hour before DL there's 3 votes for an innocent, 2 for a wolf and 2 for another innocent. If the last to be tied gets quarantined, the wolves need to be on their toes till the last minute to make sure it's not one of them. If it's the first to be tied, they can spread their votes as they like and the first innocent will still be eliminated.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

Beware of Greeks bearing gifts!

I would have said Romulans, but otherwise you took the words out of my mouth.

__________________The 21st century is when everything changes, you've got to be ready.

Location: Polishing the stars. Well, somebody has to do it; they're looking a little bit dull.

Posts: 2,980

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boromir88

Is it even too late to go into complete isolation? Can we all just go home and take an oath to keep to ourselves? Large gatherings in an outbreak just seems completely the opposite of the right thing to do.

Yes, it seems that a large gathering is not the brightest idea, but I'm afraid it may be too late to simply go home. I hear keeping a six foot distance helps, so stand back a little further away from me, why don't you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boro

Then again, again, when has anything gone according to plan? We plan, and plan, and plan. Then 30 minutes before we're forced to decide we start a new plan and all hell breaks loose.

True, true. Things never do seem to go according to plan around here. And then the ones who don't follow the plan become lynch fodder the next Day and more often than not turn out to be innocent.

Ok, cobbler much? Even I don't like my idea with so much enthusiasm. I was mainly kinda curious if that tack has ever been tried - and why not, cause it's marginally less bad than the No Votes At All camp.

But speaking of dry-runs, yeah, making people actually cast a fake vote forces them to select one person they wanna off, instead of making lists which can be quite vague.

That's exactly what I meant. If you meant it only as a "soft version of no vote", then no, that is no better than no vote, because then Wolves could straightaway lie and nobody would care.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

But putting a -3h deadline just adds more chaos in the last bit of the Day, don't you think?

Well whatever. I just wanted to set rather the latest possible time (so people DO have time to think - especially toDay, if I said that it would be halfway through the Day, some people may not have even posted yet), but before the QT vote would come through (as that could further shuffle it - but most importantly, the WWs couldn't just jump on a bandwagon created by the QT by saying "hey, I'm voting for XY, because our innocent dead people think it's wise too").

Whatever, I see it is really complicated on second sight, but... but I'd still be up for setting that up. Where there's the will, there's a way. That before the QT vote, people would have to pick a most likely vote.

Anyway, now I am probably shutting myself down for a while, but I'll be back in some hours, when hopefully also more people will have posted!

EDIT: x-ed with Pitch and Brinniel

__________________"But it is not your own Shire," said Gildor. "Others dwelt here before hobbits were; and others will dwell here again when hobbits are no more. The wide world is all about you: you can fence yourselves in, but you cannot for ever fence it out."

Then again, again, when has anything gone according to plan? We plan, and plan, and plan. Then 30 minutes before we're forced to decide we start a new plan and all hell breaks loose.

Is this you still in character, or are you just spreading panic about schemes that haven't happened yet? The Phantom is not playing, remember.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pitchwife

OK, let's suppose that, say, an hour before DL there's 3 votes for an innocent, 2 for a wolf and 2 for another innocent. If the last to be tied gets quarantined, the wolves need to be on their toes till the last minute to make sure it's not one of them. If it's the first to be tied, they can spread their votes as they like and the first innocent will still be eliminated.

So are you saying that it's safer to do wolf-on-wolf votes in that scenario, because the first innocent got 3 votes first? Except that the wolf has to guarantee that he is the last one voting, otherwise suddenly his wolf-on-wolf vote can actually tip the balance of votes in favour of his packmate. So I still don't get what the wolf advantage is. Unless it's that if a wolf is spotted late in the Day when someone else already got a bunch of votes, there is theoretically more chances of them surviving till the next Day. Is that what you're getting at?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Legate of Amon Lanc

That's exactly what I meant. If you meant it only as a "soft version of no vote", then no, that is no better than no vote, because then Wolves could straightaway lie and nobody would care.

Ah, gotcha. That kind of makes sense.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Legate

Well whatever. I just wanted to set rather the latest possible time (so people DO have time to think - especially toDay, if I said that it would be halfway through the Day, some people may not have even posted yet), but before the QT vote would come through (as that could further shuffle it - but most importantly, the WWs couldn't just jump on a bandwagon created by the QT by saying "hey, I'm voting for XY, because our innocent dead people think it's wise too").

Speaking of the Cuties, what was the final ruling on when their vote comes in?

ETA: yeeeek! We're just over 2 hours in, and on the second page already!

__________________"Surely you don’t disbelieve the prophecies, because you had a hand in bringing them about yourself?" - Gandalf

If I'm understanding this fake-voting plan Legate's brought to the table...

Fast forward to say 2 hours before the deadline. I announce I'm back and caught up to date on the events. Get myself into the mindset of "alright DL 2 hours away, but if it was NOW, of all the information and votes that have taken place I would vote ++Legate (insert reason, reason here)." And in doing that there is more information provided than providing a list of "possibilities."

Then unless something drastic happens in the next 2 hours (and if we're being honest it will. There is the inevitable deadline flurry voting that throws plans off). The point of the exercising of my prior "fake vote" is not so much to say "AHH you back-pedaled you can't back-pedal from your fake vote!" If Legate wasn't a likely option, I would expect a bunch of back-pedaling to take place. The purpose would be to get a look at reasoning for what happened in those 2 hours to either stay with my fake vote or back-pedal from it. Which, in itself is informative

I'm not a list maker, I've tried to do shopping lists, but wind up stopping after listing 2 items and trying to think of what else I need. So I wind up just going without a list and get a bunch of junk I didn't actually need. Get this, one time I went telling myself I needed milk, eggs, carrots and lettuce and came back with like toilet paper, a dagger and this new fried sugary dough thing. I did get the carrots but I completely botched that trip.

I'm not good with lists, but others need lists, so can we mandate it? Are we allowed to pass mandates?

Crikey, this is the 60th time I've been in similar nightmares. They all get worse than the one before it. I'm surprised no one's coughed yet? I was waiting for the first person to cough. Not that coughing is a sure sign, if I cough it's my seasonal allergies. I will take an oath if I do cough, I will make sure I'm all clear and cough into my elbow. I was hoping someone would cough right out into the open, but that was too optimistic.

__________________
Normalizing "changing your opinion, when presented with new information" one post at a time.

If I'm understanding this fake-voting plan Legate's brought to the table...

Fast forward to say 2 hours before the deadline. I announce I'm back and caught up to date on the events. Get myself into the mindset of "alright DL 2 hours away, but if it was NOW, of all the information and votes that have taken place I would vote ++Legate (insert reason, reason here)." And in doing that there is more information provided than providing a list of "possibilities."

Then unless something drastic happens in the next 2 hours (and if we're being honest it will. There is the inevitable deadline flurry voting that throws plans off). The point of the exercising of my prior "fake vote" is not so much to say "AHH you back-pedaled you can't back-pedal from your fake vote!" If Legate wasn't a likely option, I would expect a bunch of back-pedaling to take place. The purpose would be to get a look at reasoning for what happened in those 2 hours to either stay with my fake vote or back-pedal from it. Which, in itself is informative

Ok, so this makes sense, it's basically what Legate has already explained. But -

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boro

I'm not a list maker, I've tried to do shopping lists, but wind up stopping after listing 2 items and trying to think of what else I need. So I wind up just going without a list and get a bunch of junk I didn't actually need. Get this, one time I went telling myself I needed milk, eggs, carrots and lettuce and came back with like toilet paper, a dagger and this new fried sugary dough thing. I did get the carrots but I completely botched that trip.

I'm not good with lists, but others need lists, so can we mandate it? Are we allowed to pass mandates?

Umm, what was that all about? I get that you want to replace/amend the idea of lists with a single choice, the top pick. But seriously, what?

Should we test you for viral encephalopathy?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boro

Crikey, this is the 60th time I've been in similar nightmares. They all get worse than the one before it. I'm surprised no one's coughed yet? I was waiting for the first person to cough. Not that coughing is a sure sign, if I cough it's my seasonal allergies. I will take an oath if I do cough, I will make sure I'm all clear and cough into my elbow. I was hoping someone would cough right out into the open, but that was too optimistic.

*cough*
*cough cough*
*ahem*
*clears throat*

Congrats on the anniversary!

(Completely unrelated, but for some reason I forgot how to spell "throat" and ended up with something like "throuaght". Do I need to be tested for viral encephalopathy too? )

__________________"Surely you don’t disbelieve the prophecies, because you had a hand in bringing them about yourself?" - Gandalf

Location: Unattended on the railway station, in the litter at the dancehall

Posts: 3,077

I just lost a post replying to G55's #45 twice due to internet failure, and I'm not going to type it all again. We can discuss the question tomorrow, if it's still an issue. For now, it's bedtime for me. See ya!

__________________The 21st century is when everything changes, you've got to be ready.

Some people hardly say anything about whom they would actually vote until DL. Some people have like three people they have in the "I could vote" category. That is usually a good strategy for the WWs, who then pick from their three in the last minute, ideally based on which bandwagons exist and what is convenient. The main purpose of the whole thing would be, as I said, to force the WW's hand a bit more than it is. Kind of kick people (especially WWs) into action. Force them to fabricate their accusations of others - because then they will be more easily caught on lying. Because unlike all the other villagers, they would have to lie.

Seems that it could be a double-edged sword though; those of evil bent will have a good idea of which way the wind is blowing and plan accordingly.

Nobody said anything about wasting a day, or else I have grossly misread it!

I know it's been awhile since I've played, but has there seriously been a game with a no-vote day?

Also would that make it far too easy for WW to hide when the evidence can be spread across the entire day's worth of posts, instead of the instrumented panic that usually occurs before deadline?

Quote:

Force them to fabricate their accusations of others - because then they will be more easily caught on lying. Because unlike all the other villagers, they would have to lie.

Rushed villagers may not purposefully lie to distract, but if someone is anxious and doesn't have much evidence they might try to prove themselves by stretching the truth quite a lot (grabbing at straws). Sort of the same way that forced confessions are often useless. There is the unfortunate possibility we could end up with a different kind of bandwagon, not by votes for a player, but a lot of bunk confessionals that sound similar except for a few minor details changed to make it more personable.

I could see WWs having quite some fun with that, either the more vocal ones doing the persecuting and the more conservative echoing villagers. Given that we know their number, there is some room for them to go for the classic strategy of going after one another as a way to throw off villagers.

Just a thought I had:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nog

If there is a tie of votes in the Quarantine Thread, the one who has been quarantined the latest - and has voted for one of the tied candidates - has the final say (aka. her vote counts practically as two).

Let's say the latest in the QT thread is a wolf and by some way this happens where there is a tie. The wolf is obviously going to know who their compatriots are, could they throw the vote from the GT?
It would take a bit of finagling and if there is a mix of roles in QT obviously the villagers would know and outvote anything the wolf is trying to suggest. If successful even once it could be the evening of odds they want...

We also have the 'non-logical' hunter role in game this time:

Quote:

If the Hunter is voted to be quarantined at the end of a Day, he will take with him anyone he has chosen, whoever that is.

This is an interesting mechanic, because it does make even a 'bad vote' more complicated. If they take a villager, then there is at least more votes in their favour in the QT. If it's a wolf, sure it removes them from the GT, but if there's another wolf already in the QT it could lead them to trying alternate attempts to steal a vote.
It would be interesting if wolves in QT didn't vote together, however. Granted the number in QT would be significantly smaller than in the GT to try and use the 'spread suspicion by voting for one another' tactic, but it would make you pause and wonder why.

Ugh, nah. The air over Dor-lomin isn't what it used to be. And here people say that the air would be cleaner if everybody stayed in their village.

Anyway.

Fakes votes, eh?

If we mean fake votes instead of real ones, to avoid a Day1 lynch, I don't see the usefulness in that. Since those votes lack any consequence, it's the easiest thing for wolves to throw their votes at whoever, or wolf-on-wolf without the risk that comes with it.

If we mean a deadline before the deadline. Really? What about the people with tighter schedules. We can't expect everybody to be available for two deadlines.

Worse, the day after people will be too quick to jump on those who changed their mind from one deadline to the next. Wolves, on the other hand, lacking conscience, will have a very easy time showing consistency.

I find it very odd how very enthusiastic Legate is about this. My immediate thought was the one that Gala had, too: very cobblerish. A wolf wouldn't stick their head out that far, and one would expect an innocent person to be a bit more measured in their response, weighing pros and cons. Not saying a wolf can't fake a careful approach, of course.

Rushed villagers may not purposefully lie to distract, but if someone is anxious and doesn't have much evidence they might try to prove themselves by stretching the truth quite a lot (grabbing at straws). Sort of the same way that forced confessions are often useless. There is the unfortunate possibility we could end up with a different kind of bandwagon, not by votes for a player, but a lot of bunk confessionals that sound similar except for a few minor details changed to make it more personable.

Sense, this.

Quote:

Originally Posted by THE Ka

I could see WWs having quite some fun with that, either the more vocal ones doing the persecuting and the more conservative echoing villagers. Given that we know their number, there is some room for them to go for the classic strategy of going after one another as a way to throw off villagers.

Naturally. Usually a stab in the dark, but occasionally those can be true.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Macalaure

If we mean a deadline before the deadline. Really? What about the people with tighter schedules. We can't expect everybody to be available for two deadlines.

Indeed. And would not giving the fake vote for that reason be grounds for suspicion? If so, a handy tool for wolves. If not, an easy way for wolves to avoid it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Macalaure

I find it very odd how very enthusiastic Legate is about this. My immediate thought was the one that Gala had, too: very cobblerish. A wolf wouldn't stick their head out that far, and one would expect an innocent person to be a bit more measured in their response, weighing pros and cons. Not saying a wolf can't fake a careful approach, of course.

Umm, what was that all about? I get that you want to replace/amend the idea of lists with a single choice, the top pick. But seriously, what?

Should we test you for viral encephalopathy?

I might need such a test. Whether we're aware, or in the unconscious, we all remain in-character. Agreed? And what do you glean from my in-character? Am I aware I'm doing it or is it in the unconscious? Leave that thought there for a moment.

Currently, I am feeling joy and thrilled recognizing this makes 60. And thank you, because like I said, just joy to still have the enthusiasm and thrill that through 60 times this thing hasn't killed me yet. Then again, knowing that repeating similar situations 60 times takes quite a bit of toll on a person. Leave that thought for a moment.

I feel excitement for everyone being gathered together again. Then there's the fear that well, this is exactly the opposite of the right thing to do. Joy that there's a few newcomers, a lot who have returned from more recent-long break, and a handful who I thought had disappeared completely only to see they're back too.

So, I'm trying to take those 59 previous experiences and think what is everyone's style of play? I know everyone's always adapting and tinkering with their style, but it's hard to consciously break from what makes us comfortable. So, will people stick with what's familiar and stick to habit? And what about the ones who have been out for 5+ years? What do I remember about their style? Are they going to stick to what I remember, or do something completely different? Am I even remembering their "style" correctly?

All in all, it's a confliction of joy and excitement, with double and triple guessing and maybe a touch of paranoia. Add on someone who does a lot of mental lists, only to forget what I set out to accomplish. Now, having all that, what do you glean from my in-character?

Quote:

True, true. Things never do seem to go according to plan around here. And then the ones who don't follow the plan become lynch fodder the next Day and more often than not turn out to be innocent.-Brinn

Needed to read that, it's worth keeping in mind. Thank you. Granted my mind might look a bit jumbled at the moment. But still it's now in my mind, somewhere.

__________________
Normalizing "changing your opinion, when presented with new information" one post at a time.

I just lost a post replying to G55's #45 twice due to internet failure, and I'm not going to type it all again. We can discuss the question tomorrow, if it's still an issue. For now, it's bedtime for me. See ya!

Well, I'm not even sure if it's an issue, cause I'm not sure what you were referring to.

Quote:

Originally Posted by THE Ka

Also would that make it far too easy for WW to hide when the evidence can be spread across the entire day's worth of posts, instead of the instrumented panic that usually occurs before deadline?

So this is the second time toDay that a person implies a lack of evidence in people's early posts *squints at Lommy and Ka*. Are you in cahoots, or you're just both coincidentally trying to subtly turn people away from the idea of focusing on existing evidence and pretending all the evidence will come later?

Quote:

Originally Posted by THE Ka

Let's say the latest in the QT thread is a wolf and by some way this happens where there is a tie. The wolf is obviously going to know who their compatriots are, could they throw the vote from the GT?
It would take a bit of finagling and if there is a mix of roles in QT obviously the villagers would know and outvote anything the wolf is trying to suggest. If successful even once it could be the evening of odds they want...

Well yes. And it's interesting, because we assume that the QT will be innocently dominated, but if we're better than we think at catching infectors it might be quite even. And then we would always have to second-guess whether the QT vote is the innocents' opinion or the wolves' preference.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ka

This is an interesting mechanic, because it does make even a 'bad vote' more complicated. If they take a villager, then there is at least more votes in their favour in the QT. If it's a wolf, sure it removes them from the GT, but if there's another wolf already in the QT it could lead them to trying alternate attempts to steal a vote.
It would be interesting if wolves in QT didn't vote together, however. Granted the number in QT would be significantly smaller than in the GT to try and use the 'spread suspicion by voting for one another' tactic, but it would make you pause and wonder why.

Thing is, if a known CutieWolf casts a vote, the other Cuties are going to use that as their information. Is the known wolf protecting a packmate? Trying to off a suspected gifted? Or bluffing the rest of the Cuties and going wolf-on-wolf, because the Cuties will then vote the opposite way? Or double bluffing? Or just messing with their heads? And if there are two dead wolves, that just complicates the matter further - and if I can remember correctly, I believe they are allowed to PM with dead mates, so they can coordinate this behind the stage. Are they voting together to save a mate? Are they both bluffing? Are they voting differently to confuse everyone? To bluff? To make the QT spread their votes and fail to vote the right way as a result? This is actually an interesting line of QT tactics I haven't considered before.

Edit: xed with Zil and Boro

__________________"Surely you don’t disbelieve the prophecies, because you had a hand in bringing them about yourself?" - Gandalf

Rushed villagers may not purposefully lie to distract, but if someone is anxious and doesn't have much evidence they might try to prove themselves by stretching the truth quite a lot (grabbing at straws). Sort of the same way that forced confessions are often useless. There is the unfortunate possibility we could end up with a different kind of bandwagon, not by votes for a player, but a lot of bunk confessionals that sound similar except for a few minor details changed to make it more personable.

Sense, this.

Is it, though? Because often the way wolves are spotted is because they are anxious out of proportion to the innocents. The extra scrutiny means extra pressure on everyone, wolves included. As for bandwagons, part of their analysis is who had a good reason to be there vs who just tagged along for the ride, and thus each decision must still be the person's own true belief they are willing to stand behind. I see Ka's argument that innocents might inadvertently look more wolfish, but I also see the flip side of Ka saying she doesn't want more scrutiny. Is it really that much sense, considering all the psychology and analysis remain the same as they are in every WW game?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boromir88

I might need such a test. Whether we're aware, or in the unconscious, we all remain in-character. Agreed? And what do you glean from my in-character? Am I aware I'm doing it or is it in the unconscious? Leave that thought there for a moment.

Currently, I am feeling joy and thrilled recognizing this makes 60. And thank you, because like I said, just joy to still have the enthusiasm and thrill that through 60 times this thing hasn't killed me yet. Then again, knowing that repeating similar situations 60 times takes quite a bit of toll on a person. Leave that thought for a moment.

I feel excitement for everyone being gathered together again. Then there's the fear that well, this is exactly the opposite of the right thing to do. Joy that there's a few newcomers, a lot who have returned from more recent-long break, and a handful who I thought had disappeared completely only to see they're back too.

I see what's happening. Classic Sudden Unexpected Werewolf Overdose Syndrome. Sure, tell us about the rules mandates and the unconscious analysis and whatever other WW skills and twists you got on your mind. *endeth the pretend therapy session*

In other words, you are weird as hell but you get a pass.

__________________"Surely you don’t disbelieve the prophecies, because you had a hand in bringing them about yourself?" - Gandalf

Location: Polishing the stars. Well, somebody has to do it; they're looking a little bit dull.

Posts: 2,980

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mac

If we mean a deadline before the deadline. Really? What about the people with tighter schedules. We can't expect everybody to be available for two deadlines.

I agree. This seems rather complicated considering we all are in different time zones with different schedules. It could result in a logistical nightmare.

Quote:

Originally Posted by G55

And if there are two dead wolves, that just complicates the matter further - and if I can remember correctly, I believe they are allowed to PM with dead mates, so they can coordinate this behind the stage. Are they voting together to save a mate?

Are you talking about two wolves in quarantine PMing with each other at Night? Is that allowed? I don't recall it in the rules.

Ah, Day 1. Where all we can do is make up reasons out of thin air.~Mac

This sort of ties in with my previous post. But before I used to think Day 1's a curse. A small annoyance of "what's there for me to analyze and think about?" Maybe some new dynamic or role, but when it comes down towards the end of the day...who the heck am I going to vote for that's not going to be a random shot in the dark?

Then I fell in love with Day 1. Well, maybe I wouldn't go that far, but I started appreciating the randomness, the guessing and yes all the senseless planning. In this one day I can be who I want to be, and not feel guilty that I'm going to cause a disastrous mistake or that I'm letting my side down. There's a care-free aura that I appreciate and embrace in Day 1. If I live past it and survive to Day 2, I start feeling more tense and responsible about being "wrong." The longer I stay around in a village the more that feeling increases.

I don't know when it happened, but I got to a point of "on this one day, Boro, you can do you. Why shouldn't you have fun with it?" Because at the end of this day, it's all going to come down to random guessing of who's getting lynched anyway. Embrace Day 1 and not feel guilty to be an oddball, because if I'm going to get lynched for random reasons anyway, maybe it will have a purpose to be the 1st piece of non-random evidence that will help.

With that, I shall depart and go to bed. I can't promise I won't be a goof when I return.

Edit: crossed with everything since post 57

__________________
Normalizing "changing your opinion, when presented with new information" one post at a time.

I don't have any suspicions yet, though of course that's normal at this stage. I may hang out a bit longer this evening to watch the discussion, but I'm likely to fall asleep before too much longer.

There are five scurvy dogs, so our odds aren't terrible for bagging one of them out of sheer luck. I realize they're technically about the same odds as any other game, but let me have my illogical fantasies while I still can.

Unlike Boro, I can guarantee I will be a goof when I return. There will be links, and probably a parody or two.

Are you talking about two wolves in quarantine PMing with each other at Night? Is that allowed? I don't recall it in the rules.

Am I misremembering? There was definitely discussion about this before the game began.

Ok, I am totally misremembering. I tried to find it on the discussion thread but just came across The Mod God actually saying the opposite, that QT Wolves don't PM. But that was before the rules were finalized.

Anyways, going to bed now. Because things are likely to start happening while I'm asleep and in case people are wondering, I am still weighing the question of false votes. I am against a set false deadline, but I see pros and cons to both sides. I still can't believe that purely hypothetical question turned into an actual practical and applicable proposition.

__________________"Surely you don’t disbelieve the prophecies, because you had a hand in bringing them about yourself?" - Gandalf

Poor Badger! But all the more joy to the rest of us who can sit down together for a cup of herbal tea and solve his murder, right? *cracks knuckles* (Oh god it's been LONG and I absolutely love being here.)

What, are you suggesting we commit mass suicide? A very... cobbleresque suggestion

edit: xed with Pitchwife - and I have no idea what's Pontius Pilate got to do with all this

Only a cobbler would accuse another of shoemaking so very early.

__________________
Shasta– ... However, if he's innocent his famous clairvoyant powers must be taking the week off. Meanwhile, the Night-kills have been awfully effective– almost like we're dealing with a psychic wolf... - Nerwen, WW LXXV

Easy: he demonstrated that washing your hands is no sign of innocence.

So did Lady Macbeth.

__________________
Shasta– ... However, if he's innocent his famous clairvoyant powers must be taking the week off. Meanwhile, the Night-kills have been awfully effective– almost like we're dealing with a psychic wolf... - Nerwen, WW LXXV

Speculating on what those there are doing? No point. It's difficult (though not impossible!) to see a wolf being the first gone, but if that happened it could be useful.

Wolf! Woolf!

x/d with Lottie

+1 for Inzil.

__________________
Shasta– ... However, if he's innocent his famous clairvoyant powers must be taking the week off. Meanwhile, the Night-kills have been awfully effective– almost like we're dealing with a psychic wolf... - Nerwen, WW LXXV

I mean, you're not wrong. I didn't think G55's mentioning a no-lynch was worth strongly disagreeing with, but I did want to make it clear I was not in favor of it. I also thought that would be pretty clear in context, though maybe I underestimated Day 1 jumpiness.

I like this too.

__________________
Shasta– ... However, if he's innocent his famous clairvoyant powers must be taking the week off. Meanwhile, the Night-kills have been awfully effective– almost like we're dealing with a psychic wolf... - Nerwen, WW LXXV

That's probably enough content to make it look like I'm participating.

(Er, wait, what? )

And now I'm heading to bed. I likely won't be around until a few hours before DL, but I should be here then.

I'll leave you with this to have fun discussing - if I were to vote right now, it would be for Lommy.

Good night!

__________________
Shasta– ... However, if he's innocent his famous clairvoyant powers must be taking the week off. Meanwhile, the Night-kills have been awfully effective– almost like we're dealing with a psychic wolf... - Nerwen, WW LXXV

Am I misremembering? There was definitely discussion about this before the game began.

Speaking of roles and abilities, we missed out on the chance of having two lovers, Huor and Rian!

Quote:

Originally Posted by morm

Special abilities: may pm each other. Often the death of one will kill the other, or the survivor may be allowed a "revenge-kill". Note: there are many possible variants of Lovers; sometimes one or both has another role, which may be evil. Otherwise Lovers are generally assumed to play for the village, but this is not always the case.

... Have to admit it would be kind of nice to see a set up where Rian has a 'revenge-kill' for Huor.

I was wondering about it too, but did some extensive combing through the discussion thread and you're correct:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nogrod

I'm all for the quarantined wolves being able to PM each other (by Night), but not to the living ones.

Does make the whole QT element extremely interesting in games and kind of nerve racking. Considering without this PM ability with QT wolves, you'd assume it would put them in the dark and cut off from further scheming from incoming fellows and villagers/gifted.
With this twist, even if a wolf was sent to QT early on, a late incoming wolf could pretty much have a wolf kiki...

Thinking more on the mechanics of this, so if I'm correct and not too tired, on the second Night the QT will only have 1 player there to cast a vote?

As for Lommy and I having similar ideas... I have to confess I haven't read Lommy's post yet (I kind of skimmed to get some idea where we were because I came in later... not meant as an affront to anyone's post), but since I have a few more free moments I can catch up. I'll probably be around for another hour or so until It's time for me to turn in.

Oh ... hello! I'm sorry, I've just been busy making these masks. They have pockets!

Well, it's good to see that Lommy and G55 have come to the conclusion that we need to try lynch a wolf, er, quarantine an infected. And G55 and Legate have agreed we should cast fake votes.

And G55 and Lommy have decided that Legate is a cobbler, and Inzil and Mac have suggested he's infected?

Seriously, it's interesting how the fake votes discussion evolved, seemingly from a couple of throwaway comments to a serious suggestion. Normally it would be totally pointless, but there is some sense in it as a way to prevent people from lurking and waiting to bandwagon on the QT vote. However, I don't think it's practical, and probably won't be necessary, as "lurk and wait for the QT vote" would become suspicious behavior very quickly anyway.

When it comes to single top suspects vs lists, both have their pros and cons and leave material to analyze later on. Me, I like lists. Here's one, just to get the ball rolling:

Pitchwife
G55
Macalaure

__________________The skies of this world were always meant to have dragons. When they are not there, humans miss them.

Location: Polishing the stars. Well, somebody has to do it; they're looking a little bit dull.

Posts: 2,980

On Legate's post's about the fake votes...
Is it suspicious? Perhaps, but not necessarily. If he's evil, he's being rather bold, and if he's innocent, a wolf could use his posts to build a case against him. Then again, there could be no wolves involved and they are just quietly letting this play out.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I do believe there's only five remaining players who have not yet posted - which means odds are that there's at least 2-3 baddies hiding among the current posts. The problem I have with Day 1 is that without a track record from a previous Day, I tend see more people as innocent than guilty. Which I guess makes sense; after all, most of us are in fact innocent.

So, let's try this backwards...

So far I find Lommy to be the most genuine. She's only posted a few times early on, however, I do find her to be sensible and am agreeing with what she has to say.

THE Ka also seems level-headed to me and I'm leaning towards innocentish.

As for the other side of the scale, it's still too early for me to feel any strong suspicions, but based on hunch and posts I've seen, I am slightly more wary of: Inzil, Pitchwife, G55

So I got woken up in the middle of the night by a spam call, and so here I am. Again.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shastanis Althreduin

So did Lady Macbeth.

I.e. The more you wash your hands, the more suspect you should be?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shastanis Althreduin

That's probably enough content to make it look like I'm participating.

(Er, wait, what?)

As this will probably make a difference with later analyses, are we to assume you have not read past the last quoted post yet? Or just didn't have time for a more detailed comment?

Quote:

Originally Posted by THE Ka

I was wondering about it too, but did some extensive combing through the discussion thread and you're correct

So I was still wrong. I thought I looked through all of Nog's posts. Evidently not.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ka

Thinking more on the mechanics of this, so if I'm correct and not too tired, on the second Night the QT will only have 1 player there to cast a vote?

D1 + N2 = 2 players to vote on D2. I believe the thread is inactive at Night, and in any case voting only happens during the Day.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rikae

Well, it's good to see that Lommy and G55 have come to the conclusion that we need to try lynch a wolf, er, quarantine an infected. And G55 and Legate have agreed we should cast fake votes.

And G55 and Lommy have decided that Legate is a cobbler, and Inzil and Mac have suggested he's infected?

You’re arrested for Gate-breaking, and Tearing up of Rules, and Assaulting Gate-keepers, and - errr, that is, you're accused of Generalizing, Exaggerating, and Deliberately Misinterpreting and Misrepresenting Other Posts. I challenge you to defend your statements!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rikae

Seriously, it's interesting how the fake votes discussion evolved, seemingly from a couple of throwaway comments to a serious suggestion. Normally it would be totally pointless, but there is some sense in it as a way to prevent people from lurking and waiting to bandwagon on the QT vote. However, I don't think it's practical, and probably won't be necessary, as "lurk and wait for the QT vote" would become suspicious behavior very quickly anyway.

Assuming the QT have an innocent predominance, would it not be the innocents who would prefer to wait for the QT vote?

Aaaand back to bed for me. Even the hardy Men of Dor-lomin need their rest.

Edit: xed with Brin.

__________________"Surely you don’t disbelieve the prophecies, because you had a hand in bringing them about yourself?" - Gandalf

You’re arrested for Gate-breaking, and Tearing up of Rules, and Assaulting Gate-keepers, and - errr, that is, you're accused of Generalizing, Exaggerating, and Deliberately Misinterpreting and Misrepresenting Other Posts. I challenge you to defend your statements!

Defend, hm? Just jokingly summarizing the initial conversation. I was curious to see what sort of reaction it would get, though.

Quote:

Assuming the QT have an innocent predominance, would it not be the innocents who would prefer to wait for the QT vote?

I was referring to not voicing serious suspicions before the QT vote, which would make for a very unproductive day, no trails, lazy justifications. and a good environment for wolves to hide, which is why (I hope) innocents will avoid doing it.

__________________The skies of this world were always meant to have dragons. When they are not there, humans miss them.

I didn't like the 'fake vote' idea earlier and I'm glad it seems to have been rejected by the village overall.

I'm not sure what this means for those who discussed it early on though. G55, the original suggester, has since distanced herself from the idea, but whether this is an innocent realizing the problems with their idea vs. a bold wolf realizing that people aren't buying a bad idea remains to be seen.

On my initial read I was under the impression that Legate was supporting the idea of a fake vote with no real vote, but now, rereading the relevant post as I write this, it seems pretty clear that he was supporting the idea of a fake vote followed by a real vote rather than just a fake vote (either expanding upon on or through misinterpretation of G55's idea), which, while I disagree with the idea, makes me feel a little better about him.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Legate of Amon Lanc

Hey, THAT is actually a pretty good idea. Because seriously. It would kinda force the Wolves' hands (or tongues). I like that. I mean people can of course flip-flop later, but it isn't easy. I like it. I wholeheartedly second it. Let's do this!

(Seriously, it seems to me like something that should have come up like, years ago? What's wrong with people?)

On the other hand, I think I agree with Zil, Pitch, and others later in the thread that this proposal, such an idea doesn't change much, and just adds more complications without giving us much more to go on (and as Mac and Brinn mention, may be a problem based on timetables/time zones, which is either unfair or gives the infected an excuse), so maybe Legate isn't off the hook after all.

So far, I like THE Ka and Lommy. The fact that Brinn feels the same way (or at least claims to) makes me unsure about whether to trust her too or doubt my lack of suspicions about those two.

Seriously, it's interesting how the fake votes discussion evolved, seemingly from a couple of throwaway comments to a serious suggestion. Normally it would be totally pointless, but there is some sense in it as a way to prevent people from lurking and waiting to bandwagon on the QT vote. However, I don't think it's practical, and probably won't be necessary, as "lurk and wait for the QT vote" would become suspicious behavior very quickly anyway.

Assuming the QT have an innocent predominance, would it not be the innocents who would prefer to wait for the QT vote?

Nope. Even with an innocent-majority QT, it would be pretty short-sighted for innocent villagers to wait for a Cutie vote and make their decisions based on it. I mean, sure, if the only Cuties are innocent you can trust they won’t vote for an innocent person on purpose, but while they might have conversations we’re not privy to, they don’t know anything more than we do. (This is barring the existence of a Cutie Seer, obviously, in which case I agree Cutie votes should have more weight in our decision-making.) The reason I’m saying this is that it strikes me as an easy place to hide as a wolf – “Oh sorry I voted for an innocent, I was just following the innocent Cuties’ lead!”

That said, the whole brouhaha about fake voting a few hours before actual voting doesn’t make sense to me either. As Ka and Mac pointed out, consistency is easier for a wolf than an ordo. They already know everyone’s alignment (except for the cobbler) and can make a decision on who to go for and stick with it. Which would be a silly thing to do as an ordo, especially early on in the game. You’re supposed to change your mind about people in light of better arguments or evidence. I’d be wary of any strategy that assumes consistency is a sign of innocence. Not to mention the logistics of arranging two deadlines with 22 villagers in different time zones

Quote:

Originally Posted by Inzil

Don't many do this anyway, as in saying whom they suspect and might vote for? And those who don't, voting quickly and seemingly haphazardly, are rightly questioned.

Yes! I appreciate the sentiment behind the fake-votes-before-actual-votes -plan – wanting people to state who they suspect and why already before they actually vote for somebody. But don’t we already do that? I mean, if a player just out of the blue jumps on a bandwagon right before deadline without having previously suspected the bandwagonee (is that a word? Is now) or at least explaining why they’re suspecting them now, they’re pretty much committing werewolf suicide.

I also disagree with Gal about lists being vague and useless. I personally find them quite helpful; without them it’s easy to stick to talking about the loudest, most controversial villagers and topics and let others fly under the radar completely. This tends to serve wolves better than innocents since odds are at least some of them are among the quiet, less attention-seeking crowd. I’m not saying everyone should do lists, just that I think they can be just as revealing as fake votes (if not more).

edit: x-ed with Eonwe! *waves*

__________________"But some stories, small, simple ones about setting out on adventures or people doing wonders, tales of miracles and monsters, have outlasted all the people who told them, and some of them have outlasted the lands in which they were created."

And I'm back. Am I the first person to go away and return? No, I see G55 got there first.

Reading through the thread, I was scribbling down names to see who had showed up, and started to worry I was alphabetically first on the list. :O I was very glad when Brinniel and Boromir88 showed up, I can tell you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Inziladun

Hmm?

It took about five minutes for the thread to load for me after Deadline; I was wondering if we'd managed to overload the Downs. That was all.

Right, I promised to look over the thread so far, didn't I?

A lot has already been said about the no-vote idea, but something that jumped out at me that doesn't seem to have been brought back up is this comment by Pitchwife:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pitchwife

OK, Legate, let me ask you: What exactly do we have to gain from the kind of fake vote you're suggesting?
If it is just that, a fake vote with no real lynch as per G55, we've effectively wasted a day[...]
This strikes me as a pseudo-useful suggestion/discussion. *ping*

It really struck me how strongly Pitch seemed to be pinning the no-vote concept on Legate, even though G55 had originally proposed it and (I think) had been the main proponent up to that point. I wondered whether this might be WolfPitch (PitchFector?) trying to put the heat on Legate specifically, but why not let it stay on G55? I think someone suggested that G55's backdown could be a wolf trying to pull away from a bad idea, which could mean WolfPitch was protecting GaladriWolf, but spotting two wolves at once seems a bit much for Day 1.

Or does it? On rethinking, catching wolves by their interactions with each other doesn't seem too far-fetched?

Coming away from that discussion (I feel like Eonwe's opening post covered the actual idea fairly well), one person I've not seen much discussion of who really stuck out to me was Thinlomien. I know it's opening posts, and they tend to be a bit contentless, but this one really grabbed me:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thinlómien

I'm predicting a somewhat chaotic game, with this large a village and deadline that should work for most of us. (Personally I'm probably almost always going to be around the dl because it's midnight in my time zone and I'm a temporarily unemployed night owl.) Like I'm imanining multiple crossposted votes in the minutes before deadline. I wanted to suggest avoiding this by consciously trying to spread the vote a little, but then again, the last minute flurry can be pretty telling afterwards. But in case someone is wondering, I'm not saying that toDay should amount into a shot in the dark if we can avoid it. I'm still staunchly in camp "Day1 can and does matter" and I'm watching you all.

Also once we have the quarantine let's just be mindful not to focus too much on speculating about that, right? Unless the first person who goes there is a wolf, it would be pretty funny to see how a known dead wolf would vote!

Which almost led me to say "hey dudes, let's lynch a wolf toDay, that would be a really good idea"... well.... surprise.

"It's all going to be CHAOS, here's why we both should and shouldn't spread the vote, ignore the (presumably majority-innocent) QT, and I'm totally not going to say we should lynch a wolf because that would be wolfy (but I'm saying it anyway)".

I know that's a rather glib summary, but this post really rang alarm bells for me. I think it's the 'finding a wolf will be nearly impossible, so there's no point trying' vibe. And then her later posts seemed to be quite confrontational... come to think of it, against G55 and Legate, who were already under a certain amount of fire.

On the flip side, I'm somewhat suspicious of the people who've posted a few times but not really... said anything. I feel like Loslote did this, but mostly in the very early game when nobody was saying much of substance. The Two Bs (Brinniel and Boromir88) struck me the same way, and came in a fair bit later. Though in fairness I was starting to glaze over a little by the middle of page 2, so their later posts might have more in them than I thought.

... I've quote-posted something from Zil but have no idea why. Let me go look at the original.

Oh, right, the requote got stripped out. It was this:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Inziladun

Quote:

Originally Posted by Macalaure

I find it very odd how very enthusiastic Legate is about this. My immediate thought was the one that Gala had, too: very cobblerish. A wolf wouldn't stick their head out that far, and one would expect an innocent person to be a bit more measured in their response, weighing pros and cons. Not saying a wolf can't fake a careful approach, of course.

Hmm. Perhaps.

I have no idea how to spot a cobbler, but it occurs to me that climbing aboard a cobbler-wagon could be a nice way for a wolf to hide. If the village ends up cobbler-hunting rather than wolf-hunting, that can only be a win for the wolves, right? So this sort of mild encouragement of cobbler suspicions raised a little flag for me.

... actually, didn't Lommy bring up the cobbler as well? Yeah, there it is - right back in her first post.

So, general overview: nothing solid (obviously!), but at least a few things to consider. I would like to know why Pitch refocussed the no-vote discussion on Legate, and more generally, whether people agree that cobbler-spotting can be a wolfish tell.

Well, don't you look at the whole gestalt of a person's posts before voting, including the early handful of posts (which is actually growing quite big for a handful )? Dismissing early posts because of the "nothing really happens" argument is dismissing part of the evidence.

Of course the early banter should not be completely ignored, I was merely saying that it's not a particularly novel and genius idea to look at more than that before voting. But anyway I maintain that later Day1 posts are on average more important than the first ones which are mainly banter.

I gotta applaud Legate for getting the discussion rolling by taking G55's fake lynch idea seriously and running with it; however I'm very confused why he'd do this (ordo trying to be helpful? wolf trying to look helpful? cobbler trying to distract people?). I mean he seems to later come to the conclusion that it is perhaps too complicated a scheme to realistically execute which is exactly why I thought it was an insane idea from the beginning. Also, as Boro points out, the game is so last-minute oriented that this scheme would not even help us very much.

Ok so far, I get a bit of a funny vibe about Kitanna and Lottie but I am very aware I always get a funny vibe about them on Day1 , so I'm holding my horses here. Boro is also acting a little weird, but to be fair, it could just be about being overwhelmed by ww nostalgia. G55 caught my attention, admittedly partly because she started accusing me (and THE Ka) on what I consider really shoddy grounds - but I wonder if this is just a knee-jerk reaction on my part.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rikae

I was referring to not voicing serious suspicions before the QT vote, which would make for a very unproductive day, no trails, lazy justifications. and a good environment for wolves to hide, which is why (I hope) innocents will avoid doing it.

Hear, hear! Not a problem toDay obviously, but good to keep in mind in the future.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Greenie

You’re supposed to change your mind about people in light of better arguments or evidence. I’d be wary of any strategy that assumes consistency is a sign of innocence.

Ditto.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Greenie

I also disagree with Gal about lists being vague and useless. I personally find them quite helpful; without them it’s easy to stick to talking about the loudest, most controversial villagers and topics and let others fly under the radar completely. This tends to serve wolves better than innocents since odds are at least some of them are among the quiet, less attention-seeking crowd. I’m not saying everyone should do lists, just that I think they can be just as revealing as fake votes (if not more).

Yes. Even if everyone doesn't make and post a list, everyone should at least go through the player list in their head and pause to consider each fellow player for a sec. With this amount of players it's super easy for the wolves to slip under the radar by being quiet and avoiding the contrversial topics.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Huinesoron

"It's all going to be CHAOS, here's why we both should and shouldn't spread the vote, ignore the (presumably majority-innocent) QT, and I'm totally not going to say we should lynch a wolf because that would be wolfy (but I'm saying it anyway)".

I know that's a rather glib summary, but this post really rang alarm bells for me. I think it's the 'finding a wolf will be nearly impossible, so there's no point trying' vibe.

Ah, have you not heard of my trademark fliflopping? Seriously though, I don't consider myself flipfloppy, my brain just works on an endless "one hand, on the other hand" loop, which is both useful and frustrating to me myself. So if I'm gonna articulate my whole thought process (like I often do, because ehhh who would think through a post before writing it? not me ) it is gonna sound wishywashy. But that being said, I absolutely don't think it's impossible to find a wolf on Day1, or that it isn't worth trying. That's why I ended my paragraph there by saying that I'm still staunchly in the camp "Day1 matters".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Huinesoron

I have no idea how to spot a cobbler, but it occurs to me that climbing aboard a cobbler-wagon could be a nice way for a wolf to hide. If the village ends up cobbler-hunting rather than wolf-hunting, that can only be a win for the wolves, right? So this sort of mild encouragement of cobbler suspicions raised a little flag for me.

Yes, concentrating our efforts on finding the cobbler is unhelpful and it would be a potentially beneficial path for the wolves to try to keep the discussion in that. However, I don't think anyone concentrated on the cobbler too much so far. People can and should point out when someone looks like the cobbler, even if they aren't our primary target (identifying them is still helpful, especially later in the game. After all, if the lynch shapes up to be a toss between an innocent and the cobbler, the choice is clear, and also having an idea whom not to trust in the late game voting is pretty useful).

Also correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the early Day "you're the cobbler!" posts were largely banter (certainly my accusation of Legate was at least, as you can see it was based on his in character post about refraining from breathing being a good way to stop the Black Breath).

As for "how would one spot the cobbler" - well, that's a question. Traditionally people assume the cobbler would mess around and distract the village and draw the attention and suspicion to themselves so that the wolves can slip unnoticed meanwhile, but that is certainly not the only way to play the role. The cobbler could just as well play cautiously, try to identify the wolves, and align their votes with theirs. Or something else completely. So that's certainly one more reason not to start concentrating on the cobbler instead of the wolves.

__________________Like the stars chase the sun, over the glowing hill I will conquer
Blood is running deep, some things never sleep

I have no idea how to spot a cobbler, but it occurs to me that climbing aboard a cobbler-wagon could be a nice way for a wolf to hide. If the village ends up cobbler-hunting rather than wolf-hunting, that can only be a win for the wolves, right? So this sort of mild encouragement of cobbler suspicions raised a little flag for me.

... actually, didn't Lommy bring up the cobbler as well? Yeah, there it is - right back in her first post.

So, general overview: nothing solid (obviously!), but at least a few things to consider. I would like to know why Pitch refocussed the no-vote discussion on Legate, and more generally, whether people agree that cobbler-spotting can be a wolfish tell.

I'm supposed to be working atm so I'll be back with more substance later, but just a quick note on cobbler-spotting: yes, a village that focused extensively on speculating about the cobbler would probably be a happy place for a wolf. That said, I do think it's useful to keep the cobbler in mind - that is, to remember that there is one person around whose aim is to distract us from hunting our actual wolves. So discussing potential cobbler suspicions doesn't necessarily ring alarm bells for me, but I'd be wary of anyone mainly concerned with chasing cobblers (never seen that though) or voting for a suspected cobbler instead of a suspected wolf.

Edit: x-ed with Lommy

__________________"But some stories, small, simple ones about setting out on adventures or people doing wonders, tales of miracles and monsters, have outlasted all the people who told them, and some of them have outlasted the lands in which they were created."

Five minutes between a webex and actual productive work, so since Lommy replied I thought I'd return the favour

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thinlómien

Of course the early banter should not be completely ignored, I was merely saying that it's not a particularly novel and genius idea to look at more than that before voting. But anyway I maintain that later Day1 posts are on average more important than the first ones which are mainly banter.

I can see the argument here, but I'm also mindful of the fact that G55's original raising of no-vote Day 1 comes over as exactly the same kind of banter as 'that's just what a wolf would say!' or 'sounds cobblerish!' in opening posts. Yet it still wound up dominating the first half of the Day, and set up a lot of links (positive and negative) between the people discussing it. That could indicate a wolf taking the 'banter' and using it to cast suspicion, or using it to derail half the Day into non-wolf-hunting; it could also indicate G55 was a wolf sowing seeds to achieve the same end (which would tie in to my PitchWolf/GaladriWolf hypothesis*).

*I'm a scientist; I can't bring myself to say 'theory' on so little data.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thinlómien

I gotta applaud Legate for getting the discussion rolling by taking G55's fake lynch idea seriously and running with it; however I'm very confused why he'd do this (ordo trying to be helpful? wolf trying to look helpful? cobbler trying to distract people?). I mean he seems to later come to the conclusion that it is perhaps too complicated a scheme to realistically execute which is exactly why I thought it was an insane idea from the beginning. Also, as Boro points out, the game is so last-minute oriented that this scheme would not even help us very much.

Hah, I didn't read your post well enough before starting to reply... this is kind of half what I'm trying to say, but also half suspicious, because I feel like there's a lot of people who managed to 'contribute' by just talking about no-votes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thinlómien

Ah, have you not heard of my trademark fliflopping? Seriously though, I don't consider myself flipfloppy, my brain just works on an endless "one hand, on the other hand" loop, which is both useful and frustrating to me myself. So if I'm gonna articulate my whole thought process (like I often do, because ehhh who would think through a post before writing it? not me ) it is gonna sound wishywashy. But that being said, I absolutely don't think it's impossible to find a wolf on Day1, or that it isn't worth trying. That's why I ended my paragraph there by saying that I'm still staunchly in the camp "Day1 matters".

I totally understand that kind of thought process (I tend towards parenthetical irrelevancies myself), but I'm also wondering whether, for what is after all a 'first game back' for most of you, there's an element of playing into your** own legend: deliberately heightening your 'trademarks' to cover up for any suspicious behaviour.

**'Your' here indicates a general thought, not specifically about Thinlomien; I don't know half of you half as well as I should like, and certainly not well enough to know who's acting 'as expected'.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thinlómien

Yes, concentrating our efforts on finding the cobbler is unhelpful and it would be a potentially beneficial path for the wolves to try to keep the discussion in that. However, I don't think anyone concentrated on the cobbler too much so far. People can and should point out when someone looks like the cobbler, even if they aren't our primary target (identifying them is still helpful, especially later in the game. After all, if the lynch shapes up to be a toss between an innocent and the cobbler, the choice is clear, and also having an idea whom not to trust in the late game voting is pretty useful).

[...]

As for "how would one spot the cobbler" - well, that's a question. Traditionally people assume the cobbler would mess around and distract the village and draw the attention and suspicion to themselves so that the wolves can slip unnoticed meanwhile, but that is certainly not the only way to play the role. The cobbler could just as well play cautiously, try to identify the wolves, and align their votes with theirs. Or something else completely. So that's certainly one more reason not to start concentrating on the cobbler instead of the wolves.

Quote:

Originally Posted by A Little Green

I'm supposed to be working atm so I'll be back with more substance later, but just a quick note on cobbler-spotting: yes, a village that focused extensively on speculating about the cobbler would probably be a happy place for a wolf. That said, I do think it's useful to keep the cobbler in mind - that is, to remember that there is one person around whose aim is to distract us from hunting our actual wolves. So discussing potential cobbler suspicions doesn't necessarily ring alarm bells for me, but I'd be wary of anyone mainly concerned with chasing cobblers (never seen that though) or voting for a suspected cobbler instead of a suspected wolf.

Thank you both. I'll keep this in mind (though I may reconsider if either of you turn out to be wolves! )